Last time, I promised to include a new feature called “Near Misses” in these Book Club posts and the book I’m about to discuss, would surely be one of them. Instead it triggered a thought that produced today’s bonus post, which you might consider to be a book rant.
Today’s Post by Joe Farace
If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot. There’s no way around these two things that I’m aware of, no shortcut.”—Stephen King
For the Love of Books
Charlie Chaplin vs. America is the third book in a row that I did not enjoy reading. Like one of the others, I quit reading it early on and, to my chagrin, hung in there with the third. The entire process reminded me of going to school and if I haven’t mentioned it before, other than my time at the Maryland Institute College of Art I hated school. My aversion started on the first day of first grade and my only memory of it is of crying my eyes out because of having to be there. All through high school and college and the little bit of post-graduate work I did, my outlook never improved. When teachers assigned books for me to read I hated those books. Even after all these years, I can’t look Dickens’ Bleak House in the eye. I tried watching two different PBS adaptions of the novell, including the one with Diana Rigg, and to quote Roger Ebert, “I hated, hated, hated the movie.” Which brings me to,,,
John Grisham said he will read 100 pages in a book before giving up on it. The less patient, Stephen King will only give it 50 pages. Scott Eyman’s book Charlie Chaplin vs. America is 432 pages long and I gave up after 186 pages. Why?
I think the author made the same mistake Robert Harris did with his book Precipice: I found it overly repetitive including detailed quotes from official documents and court transcripts that go on for too long, well after already making its point. These extended excepts might be of interest to historians but it bogs down the story—in my opinion.
When I was a student at Johns Hopkins University, my Public Speaking professor told the class you should tell an audience what you’re going to tell them, then tell them and then tell them what you just told them. I don’t think that approach works for books because a reader can always flip back a few pages and refresh their memory; the author doesn’t have to beat you over the head repeating the same facts over and over. I get it the first time.
I have to say that once again I’m of a minority opinion about a book as Mr. Eyman is, according to the Washington Post, “one of the most distinguished and reliable of popular film historians.” This book has a 4.1 rating on Goodreads where “a three star rating isn’t a bad book, just average. Four stars is above average and five stars make it exceptional.” If you’re devoted cineaste, pick up the book from the library and let me know what you think.
Why do you read?
Which brings me to today’s topic: People read for different reasons but here are mine and they may be decidedly different from yours. First, I read to be entertained. I like stories, which is probably why I like movies so much. As a kid I grew up before television was widely available to families like mine and I was a big radio fan. I listened raptly to stories of Sergeant Preston of the Yukon to the Lone Ranger to The Shadow and, I’m embarrassed to admit, Little Orphan Annie. I also read to learn things, Good fiction, especially historical fiction, often includes details and facts that I find interesting and informative. Other than books about cars, I don’t read much non-fiction and these days because I’ve been (mostly) disappointed when I stroll out of my fiction wheelhouse and read contemporary non fiction. Lastly, I read to become a better writer. This is obviously not something the average reader cares about but Stephen Kind also once said, “”You have to read widely, constantly refining (and redefining) your own work as you do so.” I like to think that even though I’ve been doing this writing thing for more than forty years, I’m still learning how to improve my writing and I’m doing that by reading.
Near Misses
Here’s one book I gave up on early and another I was just disappointed after finishing:
read all of it. The book starts out wonderfully reading like an Elmore Leonard novel but then it bounces all over the place as the mood changes faster than me changing socks. The book is set in the eighties, around the time of Reagan’s second inaugural and features the exploits of a black female detective and her white male Vietnam-veteran partner. And yes, race relations are a notable part of this book too.
The pair is hired to prove that a murder suspect, who may have committed suicide, was not a murderer. At one point, one of the real killers, who happens to be gay, finds out that his lover has AIDS and, in the same chapter, is taken out in the woods and shot by his accomplice. Sorry if that’s a spoiler. I could have done without that chapter. It’s not that I’m against violence—I just watched and liked SISU a violent Finnish WWI film—it’s just that this chapter was just so sad. Other than showing the sheer ruthlessness of his accomplish, the part of the book just serves up more and you already know how I feel about that. Yet, there is a lot to like about this book especially the detective agency’s boss and her associate that turn the genre if not upside down then at least sideways. If any of this makes you curious, pick it up from the library like I did. If you do, I’d really like to hear your opinion.